I agree with you when you say that people get into trouble because of the variations between states, etc. This is what is so disturbing.
While I wouldn't necessary use the word "disturbing", I do agree that things can get mucky when traffic laws can vary a lot between states. If I am a resident of a state, it's my responsibility to know what the traffic laws are. However, when driving as a visitor to another state, I don't think any reasonable person would be expected to read the DMV manual prior to a couple-of-days' or couple-of-weeks' visit.
For example, in the state where I grew up and lived for the first 25 years of my life, U-turns areI prohibited unless there is signage that specifically states otherwise. (I don't know if this law has changed in the many years since I moved away.) Ignorance of the law is never a defense; however, I wonder how many people passing through get ticketed for a violation of this law that isn't super common. (In many states, u-turns are permitted unless stated otherwise).
Another example is where a law changes and folks are not made aware of a change. Often a person would hear about a major change if local, but how can someone know if not local? A few years ago, that state I grew up in changed the law on speed in school zones to where the speed limit was in effect 24 hours a day instead of just during school days. (I think it's a good law since many kids may go to the schools to play on the playground or go to sports practice.) However, it is/was a situation where a person may not know unless signage changed accordingly. That particular law went into effect shortly before Thanksgiving that year. I flew in and rented a car to visit my late mom and family for the holiday. I would not have known were it not for the fact my late mom told me about it because I would need to pass by an elementary school to get to the house. (Thank God for moms who think of everything when excited about a child's visit.)
Addtionally, while it is our own personal responsibilities to know the driving laws of our states, it amazes me that few states require someone taking a written test when transferring a driver's license. In my last company, everytime I was promoted, I was relocated. Out of all of the states I have moved to, only one required the written test. All states did do a DMV check, etc., but only one required the written test. Even if it requires a higher fee, I believe it is a good idea.
My next point is a little biased (I'm opposed to imparied driving - whatever form that takes - whether alcohol, Rx drugs, illegal drugs, distractions, etc.). I believe a good rule of thumb is to just not do it - period. The stakes are too high. Even a slow-moving golf cart accident can harm the driver or others.
agree that DUI is a serious problem and needed to be addressed. However, I believe the lawmakers have taken things way to far on this. What started out as a noble cause has turned into unbelievable civil rights infringements, and what is being seen as a money making scheme. It is a shame.
I am in no way trying to be argumentative, but I am curious as to what causes you to believe this? Which civil rights do you believe are infringed?
Granted, as much as I respect law enforcement, there truly does exist things like quotas, etc. One of my brothers-in-law is a detective, but started out on highway patrol. One day, our family conversation turned towards a question about revenue, performance based on tickets, etc. This man has a lot of integrity. He did explain these things are real. He indicated that many police officers are more likely to pull over a car with out-of-state plates (or an obvious rental car) for minor infractions because it is more likely the ticketed person will just pay the fine rather than travel back to the area for a court appearance.